I agree: Fewer games, more open play, ties are acceptable. I also think having fewer games might allow the NHL to improve enough to offset the dilution of talent expansion has produced.

That said, there are too many franchises that are not in hockey towns. I'm sooooo disappointed the Coyotes are getting a new arena. ASK ME what I think of Florida and Nashville hockey! Anyone?!! I don't care if Canada isn't large enough population wise, there should be at least 1/3 of the league beyond the border. Sadly, the realization of a salary cap has come after so many teams left because of economics.

The new schedule will involve 32 division (4 x 8), 40 OOD conference (10 x 4) and only 10 games vs. the other conference. Maybe each team will play home-and-home against one OOC division or perhaps one game vs each team in 2 OOC divisions.

I like the "home-and-home against ONE OOC division" idea and here is the following format (like according to your plan). "v." represents a home game. "@" represents a road game.:

I really prefer my solution. What you're saying is that I'd drive up to Vancouver (my usual favorite for NHL games) to see Sidney Crosby ONCE in my lifetime, assuming he remains in Pittsburgh.

(I'm just imagining the old rumor- and extremely STALE and not-worth-repeating rumor at that, BTW- of the Penguins moving to Portland. Oh, mama! Too bad it ain't happening.)

Even worse, the people isolated in Vancouver have to get to the right Stanley Cup finals in order to see Crosby more than once at home. Ick.

Which is where you'd chime in with the 100-game season, right? But that kills this sport.

Ask me if I can reconcile this with the NFL!

Gunner,

The sad part of this is that the city of Nashville pays the Preds to hang out at Gaylord. They probably aren't moving anytime soon.

Moreover, the NHL has been smart to be quiet about an issue that MLB and, to some degree, NFL are not...

...look at the expansion franchises and relocations starting with the Sharks. I think all of 2 of them share arenas with NBA teams, and you could argue that the Avalanche are the prime tenant in Pepsi Center, meaning they get all the good dates. Florida and Phoenix started out sharing, but both now have homes of their own. See where I'm getting at? I don't think there's really been a truly conscious NHL Sun Belt effort; it's merely happenstance in a new arena grab.

Last edited by pounder on Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

True, an issue our friends at MLS are quite familiar with, no?! I think there was a concerted Sun Belt effort though, and recall several articles in SI and other sports mags about the expansion efforts. Big cities with growing population, plus the explosion of roller blades which was to extend the appeal to folks in communities that otherwise never really skate. Remember the World Roller Hockey League(name?) on ESPN 2?

Quite simply I think the NHL tried too hard to force the game in any metro area that would take it, so to speak. There wasn't quite the cautious selection process to find out which option was best and to let prospective owners prove the viability of the community. Instead the NHL said "Who's interested?" Then someone came up said "I can foot the entry fee, here's a place to play..." "Great, you're in." I realize it wasn't that simple, but I feel safe in saying it wasn't part of a comprehensive growth strategy either. Then there were those tremendous efforts by the NHL to save the older, northern based clubs!! ::)

Rambling. I do hope the new arenas and new deal can save the NHL, and hope to see the game return to it's glorious form of the late 80's. But you have to agree that like soccer the game would be all the better if it maintained its relationship with traditional fans. Top flight hockey on this continent would not be the same without the Red Wings, Maple Leafs and Rangers.

I'm not sure if there was a "plan" for the NHL expansion that has occurred, but the newer markets served seem to be selected to place a team in a lot of USA "sun-belt" TV markets, so maybe the thinking was that this would be enticing to TV networks who are prospective bidders on the NHL TV contract.

Here's the list (the order may be wrong) of expansion / relocation since 1990....

Before this there were 21 teams - 7 (1/3) in Canada -
Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnepeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec. Winnepeg and Quebec provided decent fan support, but the money wasn't there in the era of free agency... kinda curious that as they lost teams, the NHL saw fit to expand into Ottawa, unless that was somehow for political purposes. I don't deny that there are certainly a zillion hockey fans near Ottawa, but the economics of the NHL before the cap put them at a disadvantage.

You could argue that Minnesota, Columbus, Denver don't qualify as "Sun-Belt". No argument from me, however they represent major TV markets especially if Columbus serves a fan base stretching from Cincy to Cleveland.

Why Anaheim ? I think it was a move to reel in Disney. The LA Kings were thriving briefly under McNull (before prison beckoned) and Gretzky, and Disney owned Capital Cities / ABC / ESPN. Seemed like a good partner for the league, and if greater NY can support 3 teams, perhaps greater LA could provide enough butts in the seats for 2 teams.

So now if you look at a map of the NHL, you have the major TV markets covered. Should another team ponder relocation, I'd bet on the league promoting Houston, TX.

Bettman (a former NBA protege of David Stern) knows that a national TV contract has the potential to serve up a financial windfall, and the current distribution of teams certainly appears to be positioned with that goal in mind.

I wish the NHL had implemented a salary cap and some of these rules 5 years ago, to equalize talent distribution and attempt to add more excitement to the play. It's a bit hard to predict how the game will evolve with these new rules, and I think the NHL may be a tad apprehensive and want to review and tweak them.

Still, it's a dramatic move to fix a sick sports league that's been suffering since less talented teams have gravitated toward trapping / clutching / grabbing as an equalizer. The lazy refs put their whistles away in the playoffs, and the post-season (which should showcase the best team play and talent) became a dull affair that has turned away a lot of potential fans. Here's hoping that trend can be dramatically reversed, and hoping that the TV networks come back. I hate to see ESPN2 give up on hockey, since their coverage was quite good.

Using the term "plan" to describe NHL expansion is awfully generous. Unlike real leagues, the NHL owners couldn't see beyond the next expansion check. As a result, we're stuck with Sunbelt markets which couldn't care less about hockey.

I really prefer my solution. What you're saying is that I'd drive up to Vancouver (my usual favorite for NHL games) to see Sidney Crosby ONCE in my lifetime, assuming he remains in Pittsburgh.

(I'm just imagining the old rumor- and extremely STALE and not-worth-repeating rumor at that, BTW- of the Penguins moving to Portland. Oh, mama! Too bad it ain't happening.)

Even worse, the people isolated in Vancouver have to get to the right Stanley Cup finals in order to see Crosby more than once at home. Ick.

Which is where you'd chime in with the 100-game season, right? But that kills this sport.

Ask me if I can reconcile this with the NFL!

Pounder, I understand what you mean and I respect your solution. But this is just only a "prediction example", not the real thing. Like I said in my previous post. "I like the 'Each team will play home-and-home against one OOC division' idea". The new and now recent scheduling idea for non-conference rivalries didn't impress me well:

East (Northeast) vs. West (Pacific)
East (Northeast) @ West (Northwest)
East (Atlantic) vs. West (Northwest)
East (Atlantic) @ West (Central)
East (Southeast) vs. West (Central)
East (Southeast) @ West (Pacific)

What happen with these following?:

East (Northeast) vs./@ West (Central)
East (Southeast) vs./@ West (Northwest)
East (Atlantic) vs./@ West (Pacific)

And will it apply for future NHL seasons under the new rule. If so, it might be interesting. I can't wait to hear it. No offense with anyone and it nothing personal, because I respect everyone in this forum and the league's staff. Thanks and have a great day.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum